Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-07 16:35:58
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Andrey Semashev
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> I am against such a move. Boost Threads requires linking for other
>> features which makes it one of the few libraries in Boost that can be
>> properly designed to avoid unnecessary physical coupling. Unless
>> something is proven to cause performance problems it should not be
>> inlined, regardless of how simple it is.
> I don't see your point. AFAIK, mutexes do not require any features that have
> to reside in a separately compiled library.
In principle, nothing ever has to reside in a separately compiled library.
You don't see my point because you think of the header-only approach
as a good thing, whereas in my mind headers should be limited to
things that must be in a header, such as functions for which inlining
is critical, as well as template definitions. This reduces physical
coupling, which is only a problem in large scale projects;
unfortunately by the time it becomes a problem it is already too late.
By the way, Boost is way past that point, so a good argument against
my position is that one more header-only lib isn't going to make
things (much) worse. :)
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk